HomeMy WebLinkAbout20023169.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2002, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Tl
James Rohn a
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom ....,
Stephan Mokray ;
Cathy Clamp `J
Bernard Ruesgen Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Peter Schei,Don Warden,Don Carroll, Pam Smith,Drew Scheltinga, Monica Mika,Kim Ogle,
Robert Anderson, Chris Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 5,
2002, will be differed to the next meeting.
Transportation Impact Fees
Don Warden, Finance Director
Don Warden, Director of Finance, provided clarification with regard to the code ordinance that was
distributed and will be in effect. The county is eliminating the Southwest and the Windsor Area Impact Fee.
There would be a countywide fee that included four quadrant areas. The funds would be collected uniformly
but will be distributed in the quadrants that applies. The code ordinance is the same but changes the
boundaries for benefit areas. The concept and the calculation are the same. The proceeds will got the
strategic roads that the county has identified. There will be a need for other dollars to accommodate the
expected work. There are a few different ways that the money is being requested.
John Folsom asked about the information that was distributed. Mr.Warden indicated that this is a study of
the surrounding areas and the transportation impact fees utilized. The philosophy is that new growth should
help pay its own way. Mr. Folsom asked about fees in the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Mr.Warden
stated that is who completed the study and the county will not be involved in this. The municipalities will
have their own impact fees, these fees are for unincorporated Weld County and would be collected at the
time of the building permit. Mr. Folsom asked about the quadrants having an improved road in each of
them. Mr.Warden indicated that this was correct. Mr. Miller asked when it would be effective. Mr.Warden
stated it would become effective January 1,2003. Ms. Clamp asked if it has went through the first reading.
Mr. Warden stated it has been through first reading but there was not a presentation or public input. That
was reserved for the second reading to keep the time frame needed,everything is the same.Mr.Miller asked
if this was the same document presented at the last meeting. Mr. Warden indicated that only item missing
was the ordinance.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom commented on the fairness because most of the growth is in the municipalities and they are
not going to contribute to the fee structure. It does seem to burden those that are in unincorporated areas
of the county.
et o t t ay/IL Page 1
�� _ii- -` . 2002-3169
Bryant Gimlin indicated that there are other ways to look at this. The municipalities pay county taxes and
they will be supporting it through that. It works both ways. Mr. Folsom indicated that with regard to paying
taxes, by those in the county, those are used for other purposes within the county finance structure. Mr.
Warden indicated that 40%of the road and bridge fund is supported by the highway users fund which is the
gas tax. The structure of the funding for the road system in the state takes into account the location.
Historically counties have taken this responsibility for the connectors between the municipalities. Mr. Rohn
asked about the County Road 35 was going to be one of the major roads. Mr.Warden indicated that is was
not. Mr. Miller stated it was not within our scope to rebuild the road system.
Stephan Mokray moved that Transportation Impact Fees be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. John Folsom seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: CC2002-XX
APPLICANT: WCR#1 Coalition
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 of Section 31, T3N, R68W and part of the NW4 of Section
6, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22 (Comprehensive
Plan) and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development Plan Structural Land Use
Map 2.1 to include 387 +/-acres into the MUD area).
LOCATION: South and adjacent to WCR 28; north and adjacent to WCR 26;west and
adjacent to WCR 1.
Stephen Mokray removed himself due to possible perceived conflict of interest.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case CC2002-XX, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application.
James Rohn asked for clarification with regard to the land owned by the City of Longmont. Mr. Anderson
indicated that Longmont does own land which is adjacent to and surrounded by the proposed MUD inclusion.
The land is presently vacant and is not a part of the application. Mr. Folsom asked about state statute and
contiguity which has been permitted using flagpoles and bodies of water. The restriction or basis for the
recommendation of denial is based on what is in the code and DPS interpretation of the more restrictive
adjacent and contiguous. Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Morrison if this is approved will this set a precedent. Mr .
Morrison indicated that when a specific phrase is included and the Planning Commission concurs with that
phrase,the language could be interpreted in a way to set a precedent. When there a phrase that has to be
interpreted, such as in this case, it should be interpreted consistently. John Folsom asked if no contiguity
was established could the properties to the south of the Union Reservoir parcel continue with the application.
Mr.Morrison indicated that the applicant would have to agree to do it that way. Planning Commission cannot
amend the application.
James Rohn asked for clarification on the location of the MUD boundary and property owned by the City of
Longmont. Mr. Anderson indicated where the Longmont City Boundary was and the specific properties
owned by the City of Longmont but within the county. Mr. Morrison emphasized that the property is owned
by City of Longmont but are not within the city boundaries. Mr. Folsom asked about the sanitation district
for the sewage. There is an IGA between the St. Vrain and City of Longmont. Can the applicant obtain
sewage disposal since it is controlled by the City of Longmont. Mr.Anderson indicated that the one reason
for the continuance of this case was to allow the applicant to participate in a 208 Boundary change by St.
Vrain Sanitation District. Staff acknowledged that they were unable to determine the status of that
Page -2-
application.
Michael Miller asked about the City of Longmont letter for denial because they want it annexed in to the city.
Mr.Anderson cited the City of Longmonts referral and their recommendation of Denial and indicated DPS
did not have any record of any negotiations between the applicant and the City of longmont. Mr Anderson
advised that the applicant could better address this matter.
Don Leffler,representative for the applicants,provided clarification with regard to the project.The applicants
have a tentative agreement with the City of Longmont. Information was handed out with regard to
agreements with City of Longmont, St. Vrain Sanitation District, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District. The property owners are continually working with the municipalities,county and the other agencies.
They are also working to obtain sewer and water services. The City of Longmont agreement contains
provisions for the expansion of Union Reservoir while the project will not be annexed for a period of ten
years. It is not a condition from the City of Longmont to be annexed for the project to move forward with the
development. With regard to contiguity and the parcel separating them, both properties are owned by the
same individual. The right of way is what separates them. The applicant is trying to be compatible with the
adjacent developments without regard as to who owns or what municipality or what area they are located
in. The applicants have been working with the City of Longmont with regard to the sewer and sanitation.The
applicants that withdrew the application for the water and sewer from St. Vrain in favor of the IGA with the
City of Longmont.
James Rohn indicated that some of the property will be under water. Mr. Leffler indicated the lines will
move back.
John Folsom asked about the negotiations between the City of Longmont and is there anything in writing.
Mr. Leffler indicated that a draft of an agreement was presented during the IGA negotiations. The formal
agreement has not been achieved. The agreement contains conditions for municipal service in exchange
for the land needed to enlarge Union Reservoir. Mr. Folsom asked if the property owners are going to deed
the needed property to the City of Longmont. Mr. Leffler indicated that the property owners will adjust the
proposal to accommodate the expansion of union reservoir by adjusting the development.
Cathy Clamp indicated that in the beginning the proposal was to prevent the expansion of Union Reservoir
and not allow the development of the properties. In order to be included into one of the sanitation districts
there is a need to have some of the properties go under water, is this the reason for going into the MUD.
Mr. Leffler stated that the applicants are in it for two different things. The application for inclusion is so the
development is designed according to MUD standards and the land will not be annexed into Longmont so
the City of Longmont will work with them. Ms.Clamp asked if the design standards vary between the MUD
area and the City of Longmont. Mr. Leffler indicated that it does. While inside the IGA both the City of
Longmont and the MUD standards must be adhered to. Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Morrison if this application
was approved will it preclude the City of Longmont from the expansion of the reservoir or violation with the
IGA. Mr. Morrison indicated that the MUD rules do not address water storage projects as far as raw water
or irrigation water. There is no connection between the application and the expansion of the reservoir.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Morrison about the City of Longmont denial and PC approval would violate the IGA.
Mr. Morrison indicated that the IGA kicks in at a specific development proposal stage not this stage. Mr.
Miller asked Mr. Leffler as to why the owners do not want to annex into the City of Longmont. Mr. Leffler
stated that they enjoy the aspect of the county and the agreements will state they will stay in Weld County
and give up some of the land for the expansion of Union Reservoir. The applicants want to preserve the
value of the ground and stay in the county. The economic benefits and lifestyle are what the owners want
to maintain. Mr. Miller asked what are the benefits by being in Weld County adverse to being in the city.
Mr. Leffler indicated that it was the quality of what the applicants have requested, is to maintain themselves
inside of Weld County. There are design criteria if they went to the City of Longmont. This proposal is for
two d/u(dwelling units)per acre and the City of Longmont would like seven d/u per acre. Some owners want
to maintain the openness associated with the county and that can be accomplished by being inside the MUD
area.
James Rohn asked Mr. Morrison for clarification with regard to the contiguity requirements and standards
Page -3-
and flagpole. Mr. Morrison indicated that the MUD amendments need to be applied to this case. The
annexation requirements are different and allow a flagpole. The language is not the same. Generally
adjacent property owners own some small bundle of rights with respect to County section line roads.The only
rights they have is if the road is vacated they can get the rights to the road back. They have no current
possessory rights but have the possibility of gaining full ownership if it is abandoned. The reservoir is
involved because according to annexation requirements the surface of the reservoir can be used as
contiguity.
John Folsom asked if there is a draft agreement between the City of Longmont and the applicants.Mr.Leffler
stated there is. Mr. Folsom asked about the property owners desire to either maintain their quality of life or
to develop the property. Mr. Leffler indicated that it is several factors including maintaining the quality of
life as well as the economic value of the property. The criteria for the MUD has been met. Mr. Leffler
indicated that the letter can be submitted. There is no intent in this application to set a precedence for future
applications. The intent is to put good planning practices to areas inside the MUD in accordance with the
goals and policies.
Cathy Clamp asked about the maps and if the design standards differ from being in Longmont as to the
county. Mr. Leffler indicated that the proposal difference is the d/u per acre. There is a possibility of
reducing that even further depending on the sewer system capability. Ms. Clamp asked how is the MUD
going to benefit adverse to the City of Longmont. Mr. Leffler indicated it is the number of dwelling units that
are required according to the design standards. Ms.Clamp asked if Longmont has indicted that they would
not give a variance to the density being requested. Mr. Leffler stated that Longmont is agreeable to it. The
applicants still want to maintain the Weld County quality of life.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to a possible variance to the number of d/u by the City of
Longmont. Mr. Leffler indicated that the City of Longmont was in favor of the lower density and being in the
MUD. They would not be in favor of such a low density if annexed into the City.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Phil Willis, applicant to WCR#1 Coalition, indicated his desire to develop into estate lots. A sketch plan for
estate lots was submitted to the county and at that time the City of Longmont did not want this because of
the expansion of the reservoir. The application was denied with the County wanting sewer and water and
the inclusion into the MUD. In order to develop the property must be in the MUD, this is the reason for
applying for inclusion into the MUD, because DPS said to apply. The traffic on County Road 1 is bad and
farm equipment cannot move safely down the road. The City of Longmont is developing the adjacent
property with 7 d/u per acre and the property owners did not want this high of density. There are a number
of standards that the City of Longmont has that the county does not have. Some of them include the school
issue. This means that if the school is overcrowded they will let you annex but not develop until the school
issue clears up. The development wants to be estate lots and not a higher density. City of Longmont has
design standards for affordable housing and they are not looking to develop those types of homes. The
water and sewer will be furnished by the City of Longmont in accordance with the draft agreement in place.
The agreement will also contain a provision that they will not annex into the City for the next 10 years.
Michael Miller asked about the City of Longmont withdrawal if the applicant will give some land for the
expansion of the reservoir and why want to be in the MUD. Mr. Wallis indicated they cannot build and
develop urban scale, according to the County, if they are not within the MUD. Mr. Anderson indicated that
Urban Scale is promoted in the MUD.Policy indicates that if they are located near an urban area annexation
would be recommended. Ms.Mika indicated she could expand on Mr.Anderson comments. The application
has two options with passage of the Longmont IGA.This area is now in an IGA urban growth area they have
the right to follow through with the application. It does not necessarily have to be in the MUD since it is
already located in an IGA area. The city will have to agree to not object and state it is agreeable to continue
with the application. Ms.Mika indicated that the IGA does reference MUD standards. Mr.Morrison indicated
that just because there are other opportunities it does not determine rather this application should be
approved. The IGA with Longmont final agreement was tempered in part by the negotiations with this
applicant. The County and the City's agreement is understood by these landowners. Mr. Miller indicated
that this is a case of contiguity and there is not contiguity by definition. Mr. Miller questions rather the
Page -4-
inclusion would change the abilities of the applicant if it were not to be in the MUD area. The design
standards would be similar with either. Mr. Morrison stated that this may not be the issue. If the applicant
were to chose another avenue they would not be here and that would be their choice.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom asked if the draft letter is available and if staff is aware of this. Mr. Anderson indicated that
he had informed representatives of the City of Longmont Planning Office of the hearing and there was no
additional information from Longmont. Ms. Mika indicated that as the Longmont IGA was being negotiated,
there is documentation in the records that shows there has been discussions between some of the applicants
and the city. The language talks about how Longmont will not aggressively pursue any negative comments
for any future developments if the terms for a long term agreement can be agreed upon. There has not been
anything t hat specifically a ddresses t his case. T he responses w ere i n regards to developments not
specifically this issue. Mr. Folsom stated that there is nothing from Longmont withdrawing their denial
recommendation. Ms. Clamp asked Ms. Mika if anything was discussed with regard to inclusion into the
MUD,maybe a condition of Longmont that it be in the MUD. Ms. Mika indicated that she does not recall that
being criteria. The negotiation had to do with service provision and density of the development. Mr.Willis
indicated that the MUD was not specifically addressed and that he spoke with Mr. Rademacher from the City
of Longmont stated that there was not need for it. Mr Willits indicated h e k new of a letter from Mr.
Rademacher indicating that they will provide water and sewer for 10 years. If the need to be in the MUD to
develop has changed than there is no need for this application.
Monica Mika indicated that the timing of this case are vital in this determination. When the developments
came to the county they were urban scale in a non urban area. At that time the requirement for being in the
MUD was correct. With the changes that have occurred it would now help to be in the MUD area but is no
longer a requirement. The IGA indicates that the county does not process urban developments in urban
areas, the county will recommend annexation. Since the City of Longmont has no objection to this
development and will not annex, the county will continue to process.
John Folsom commented that the application does not meet the requirements for adjacency or contiguity.
The application should be sent to the Board and they should make the determination. Planning Commission
should address matters in the code only. There is testimony that there is documentation but nothing has
been presented. It would be better for the Planning Commission to deny the application and send it to the
Board to let them decide. This will give time for the agreement between the applicant and the City of
Longmont to be finalized. The applicant could then submit it.
Cathy Clamp commented that the legality or phrasing should not be interpreted by the Planning Commission.
The standards that need to occur would be best met by the MUD. It would be better to forward the
application with no recommendation. Mr. Morrison indicated that there is not an opportunity to do nothing.
A recommendation must be made and the Board can either agree or disagree. Mr. Gimlin indicated that a
recommendation needs to be done especially for the benefit of the applicant. If the recommendation was
denial then the applicant has the ability and time to address those concerns. Mr. Miller indicated that the
applicants do not have contiguity. By approving this would allow a flagpole type situation.
John Folsom moved that Case CC2002XX,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of denial. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The application does not meet the requirements for adjacency or contiguity.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Cathy commented that the parcels may best be served by being in the MUD, the contiguity is in question.
It would be best to get a letter stating that there is no objection to this application being included into the
Page -5-
MUD area.
John Folsom commented that the City of Longmont needs to provide a letter indicting there approval.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-552
APPLICANT: William & Dolores Roberts
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A and B of RE-2342; being part of the SE4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) to Planned Unit Development
(PUD) with E (Estate) Zone uses for Ten (10) Residential Lots and 51+/-
Acres Common Open Space on 80+/-Acres.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 64 1/2 and West of WCR 27.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-552,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Cathy Clamp asked if the mining is going on and what the remainder is. Mr. Anderson indicated that the
application cites 12-18 months before completion of Mining. A condition has been included for complete
reclamation prior to submission of Final Plat Application.Staff believes that there is not enough time for the
reclamation to be completed and the proposal to begin.
Todd Hodges, representative, provided clarification with regard to the project. The basis for planning staff
denial is 10 lots versus 9 lots. It does meet the intent of the non urban as well as the urban development
criteria. The area has been developing and it does meet the intent of this area and is compatible. The
applicant has met with the town of Windsor and they have no conflicts with the project. There are
developments within the area that are of a urban design. This in an area that has been deemed to grow.
Within the project, the road realignment has been a n issue t hat has been addressed a long with the
reclamation of the mining operations. There are additional turn around areas to meet the fire districts
conditions. The lake will be accessed exclusively by the homeowners. It will be used for fishing and a
wildlife habitat. The property will have a non potable irrigation system for the lake. The landscaping is
extensive and will buffer the adjacent property to the right of way. There is a substantial right of way
dedication that will occur. The applicants are willing to dedicate not just reserve. The open space
landscaping around the lake is part of the reclamation plan for the USR for Hall Irwin. The subdivision will
have architectural controls. This is an approved RE that has incorporated both lots into the final
configuration. The mining is currently 65% completed. There are agreements with the North Weld Water
District and all the referral agencies have been addressed. The Town of Windsor supports the project. The
City of Greeley has an outdated ordinance for one home per 20 acres. The staff comments for denial were
addressed. Code sections were utilized to encourage support of the project. After reclamation of the
property the applicant believes this is the highest and best use for that property. This meets the intent of the
ordinance and the site. The PUD process is intended for flexibility.
Cathy Clamp asked if the intent for the properties are going to be large scale homes or smaller.
Billy Roberts, applicant, indicated it would be higher scale homes. Ms. Clamp asked if the area will be
promoted for horses or family oriented. Mr. Roberts indicated that the exact drawing of the covenants have
not been established. Ms.Clamp asked about the shares from the Whitney Ditch and their use to replenish
the lake on the property. The remaining shares goes to the open space. The agreement with North Central
Weld is to provide for 114 thousand gallons per tap and then it will be shut off. Pam Smith, Weld County
Health and Environment, stated that 900 gallons serve a four bedroom house. Mr. Roberts indicated that
North Central Weld water was excited about this development because of the exterior non potable source.
Ms. Clamp asked about fire protection requests. Mr. Roberts indicated that it has been addressed by the
applicant adding fire hydrants. The pressure was the issue. North Weld water is working with the applicant
for the pressure using backflow prevention. This will boost the system.
Page -6-
James Rohn asked if Mr. Roberts is still intending on residing on the property. Mr.Roberts indicated he was
and Hall Irwin will mine the remainder of the approved USR. Mr. Roberts indicated that the Division of
Wildlife has played a large part in the design of the lake and area. Mr. Rohn asked about the depth of the
lake and the safety of the lakeshore upon completion of the reclamation. The lake is approximately 40 feet
in depth. It does vary by design in depth due to the Division of Wildlife suggestions. The slopes were taken
care of by the Division of Wildlife. Mr. Roberts indicated it will be gravel or dirt.The edge must be reclaimed
with topsoil. There will be no erosion or drop offs. There will be a sandy beach and picnic shelter.
John Folsom asked if the lake will be used for recreational purpose and if compatible with wildlife. Mr.
Roberts indicated it complies with both. There are specific areas in the southwest corner of the lake that
were specifically designed for spawning areas. There are also areas designed to draw deer. There will be
signs posted in specific areas prohibiting trespassing by dogs or humans. They will be restricted areas for
the wildlife.
Stephan Mokray asked about irrigation water to use in the lake and allotment. Mr. Roberts indicated that
the ditches on the property will fill into the lake. The augmentation plan has been prepared and there will
be enough for the lake. Mr. Roberts indicted that the augmentation plan was done with the mining operation
that was done by Hall Irwin. The application has not been approved by the state but the concerns have been
addressed.
Kelly Custer, the Applicant's Water lawyer , indicted that the water shares are more than enough to cover
all of the outdoor uses. There is even some excess. There is a sufficient amount of irrigation water also.
Mr. Mokray asked where the tail water went. Mr. Roberts indicated that there was never really enough tail
water. It stays in the ditch. There is still a plan that this will return to the ditch. Part of the augmentation
plan and storage water is to dump some water back to the river in the event of shortage down stream. Ms.
Clamp asked about the amount of water associated with a share of Whitney water. Mr. Roberts indicated
that the Whitney ditch has first and last rights on river water.
John Folsom asked about the alternative of using one of the RE lots and sketching out the other lots. Mr.
Roberts indicated that nothing officially had been sketched out with the RE lots being included.
James Rohn asked Ms. Smith if the depth of the lake is a concern with the health dept. Ms.Smith indicated
that was something that the Sheriff's Department would be looking at. The Health Department would
concentrate more on the aspect of ground water possibly effecting septic systems. Mr. Miller asked about
the agreement with the water district being so few gallons. Ms. Smith indicated that 900 gallons is for two
people per bedroom with a peak percent. This is a four bedroom home with eight people which typically
does not happen. Mr. Roberts indicated that in essence there is not much water used.
James Rohn asked about the lake and the soil having seepage. Ms. Smith indicated that the perk test
ranges from 53-67 per inch.They were done in December 1999. The soil is of more clay texture. Additional
boring were done in the summer time and they were ranges were 8-10 feet and not on the lots themselves.
They are inside where the lake would be. There should be no problems with the septic systems. There is
little irrigation going on now. Some systems may be engineered.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Todd Hodges, has questions with some conditions of standards. Mr. Roberts asked for clarification with
regard to any development activity or any building permits until the plan has been recorded. Mr. Roberts
indicated that part of an agreement with Hall Irwin is to relocate some dirt for a berm along the road. There
will be no building permits requested. Mr. Miller indicated that is part of the approved USR with Hall Irwin.
Hall Irwin will be constructing structures according to their mining operation. Mr. Roberts questioned the
attachment of the USR for Hall Irwin and if a partial vacation could be achieved. Mr.Anderson indicated that
a portion of the Mining USR could be vacated. The rationale for recommending Final Application until
Mining was complete was the incompatibility of the mining operation and the subdivision. This would not
address the planning staffs consideration of incompatible land uses. Mr. Roberts indicated that the mining
area does not go to the property line to the road. The USR included different area on the neighbors property
Page -7-
also. The berm was for Public Works to not have conflicting traffic. Mr. Roberts indicated that there will be
notes added on the recorded documents indicating that mining operations will be occurring on the site.
Julie Chester, Hall Irwin, indicated that mining will go for 12-18 months and reclamation will be completed
within the 18 month time frame. Hall Irwin will vacate this when it is done. They would recommend that a
note be on the plat that tells people about the mining operation.
James Rohn asked for clarification on the vacation of a portion of the USR. Mr. Morrison indicated that
some of this overlaps because of the relationship of the pond to the properties. Ms. Chester indicated that
the USR does not go completely to the road due to the possible relocation of the road. Mr. Morrison
indicated that the mining area will be part of the out lot but is still part of the PUD.
Todd Hodges recommended moving the language to a section for after approval instead of prior to approval.
The optimal would be to place the condition in Prior to release of Building permits. This was residential
construction would not occur until the full reclamation was made. The way this is now it would not allow for
the submittal of the final plan. Ms. Clamp asked if the intent was to stake and sell the lots prior to the final
reclamation being accomplished. Mr. Roberts indicated that there are already prospective owners to some
of the lots. To pre sell two lots to recover some costs would be optimal. To be locked into telling buyer that
they cannot build for two years is not a prime situation.
Robert Anderson requests moving H to#6 Prior to submittal of the final plat. This would give the applicant
a little more time. It is an issue of timing.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to the applicants request for moving the condition of
approval. Mr. Roberts indicated that the way it is stated now they cannot even submit the final plat. If they
could move forward and have this done would allow them to sell the lot but not yet build.
Robert Anderson indicated that the incompatibility issue is something that cannot be skirted. Mr. Miller
wanted clarification on what would be considered incompatible. Mr.Anderson indicated that the recording
of the final plan creates the lots. Then it becomes a tracking issue. There is a possibility to lock out the
parcels/permits. The applicant has proposed language for this condition. The language consists of"future
and/or potential owners of lots shall be notified while mining activity is planned and occurring on the site.
No residential building sites be located within the mining cell."
Michael Miller indicated that during mining the walls of the pit are steep and prone to caving in. Mr.Morrison
indicated that there is a reclamation requirement that must be met. Just because there are separate permits
does not mean that they are discontinuous projects. One is a carry over to the other.
Robert Anderson provided clarification with regards to the location of the USR and that there is a portion of
the land that is not included in the mining that is located to the road.
James Rohn moved to 5H to 7C. The language consisting of the above quotation. Stephan Mokray
seconded
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Smith about the septic systems and the reconfiguring of the lots having and effect
to the systems. Ms. Smith indicated that it did not effect the overall density, but there is a policy that 2.5
acres is the minimum lot.
Michael Miller commented that there is no compelling argument for the 10 lots. The nine lots could have
been accomplished and they could have stayed within the guidelines. There is no reason to make an
exception. They could have done the nine lots and been fine. There is no reason to vary from the
guidelines.
Page -8-
Robert Anderson read into the record a portion of Section 23-5-320 uses permitted in overlay district. Mining
was not addressed in the application. The plat would change the zone and it would be in conflict with the
uses in the PUD zone district. Mr. Morrison stated that you can create uses in the PUD zone district, not
confined to any particular use. Mr. Miller indicated that the goal is to not have any building permits issues
until the reclamation is completed. Essentially the lots can be sold but they cannot be built upon.
James Rohn commented that the difference with the nine lots was that the owner was not residing there.
The subdivision will have ten lots and the owner will be residing there.
John Folsom moved that Case PZ-552,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial based on the additional number of lots. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes;James Rohn, no; Cathy Clamp,
yes. Motion carried.
Cathy Clamp indicated her concern over the water that will be utilized for the internal purposes.
John Folsom indicated that this might be the highest and best use for the property owner but may not be for
the citizens of Weld County.
CASE NUMBER: PF-1021
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
APPLICANT: REI, LLC, c/o Christine Hethcock
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sections 4,5,8,9,10 & 17, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: PUD Final Plat for the 2n° Filing of Beebe Draw Farms for 406 lots.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 32; east of and adjacent to WCR 39; and
north of and adjacent to WCR 38. For a more precise location, see legal.
Lee Morrison question the applicant concerning adequate notification according to State Statute given
specifically to Kerr McGee.
Chris Greneaux,Kerr McGee,did receive notice from the county within the 30 days. Mr. Morrison indicated
that the process is somewhat different between the State and County notification. One is required from the
applicant and one from staff. Mr.Greneaux stated that the notice that was received was sufficient and they
are willing to proceed. There are other issues that will be addressed.
Monica Mika,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1021,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to the code that will be applied to this application. Ms. Mika
indicated that the code in effect during 1983 is the code requirements that must be used.
James Rohn asked why a development of this size was not required to use a sewage system not a septic
system. Ms. Mika indicated that when the application was submitted there were different options available.
There will be 800 septic systems in this area.
Jim Fell, original applicant and now consultant, has hired David Clinger to complete the project. Mr. Fell
retired in March.
David Clinger, representative, provided additional information to the project including some background.
Filing 2 totals 2307 acres. The Filing Two Plat is requesting 406 lots for a total of 594 lots in the subdivision.
The opens space in filing two is for 1007 acres which is 44% of all the total land. The open space for the
subdivision is 1596 acres which is 46%of the overall section. The minimum lot size will be 2.5 acres. This
Page -9-
will conform to the requirements for the septic fields. The original approval was for 801 lots. The septic
systems were approved after extensive studies were done on the soil. A Beebe Draw Metropolitan District
was formed to maintain the septic systems. The originally submitted Filing two was denied due to septic
issues. The applicant has spent a significant amount on the infrastructure of the subdivision as well as the
amenities for the Metro District. In the December 2001 Planning Commission hearing technical issues and
increased open space were addressed. The homes are located within groups and are not spread out and
work towards the amenities. The entry building is also used by the Sheriff's Department. The roads are
public except for the road to the amenity area. Landscape areas will be done around key intersections,and
the amenity area. Mr. Clinger provided clarification with regards to the internal structure and the lots
themselves. There are strict regulations with regard to the size of the structures and what can be included
on the lot. There is also restrictions with regard to the water and where it can be used. The septic fields will
have a primary and a secondary system. The well heads and tank batteries have been delineated on the
plat with the correct setbacks indicated. The majority of the oil and gas lines are located within the open
space and green belts of the subdivision. There has also been an environmental study along the east side
of the project. It has been approved by the EPA, Division of Wildlife and National Wildlife Service. There
can be no development near the reservoir. The plan is trying to accommodate all the issues and contain
additional benefits.
David Schupp, environmental engineer, provided clarification with regard to the septic systems. The soils
have been extensively tested. These are not disposal systems they are subsurface sand filters. It will treat
the affluent on site prior to dispersal. The septic envelopes that are delineated for the septic systems are
more than large enough to accommodate. Mr. Mokray asked how the systems work. Mr. Schupp stated it
has a filter,tank and a dosing chamber. The affluent is distributed over the entire sand surface at once.The
chamber will distribute it evenly. The tanks will collect the solid waste material. These systems treat the
affluent through the sand filter before it enters into the ground. Sand filtrations is the oldest method known
to man. A biomat of bacteria forms on the surface of the filter and this is fed by the material being sent to
it. Then it goes to the filters that are 4 feet deep and then into the existing ground. The soils test indicate
that ground water depth is not an issue. There will be monitoring wells near the reservoir to determine if any
groundwater contamination is occurring. These will be built as soon as there is approval and they will be
monitored continuously. This does not preclude the health department from coming and inspecting. It will
submit records on an annual basis or when it is requested. It is a type of a maintenance program that does
not exist anywhere in the state. The cost is $11 dollars a month and this will be paid in the mill levy to the
Metro District from the HOA. This is an attempt to meet the needs of the homeowners and the county. It
is based on treatment and groundwater monitoring and continuous program for maintenance and system
monitoring.
James Rohn asked if it was cheaper for a traditional sewer system.. Mr. Schupp indicted it would not, the
regulations are now more strict. The regulations want treatment as near to the source which means the
backyard.
David Clinger continued with his presentation. The septic system is custom for the area and is the finest that
they can come up with. They have done the best to protect the surrounding owners and adjacent owners.
Mr.Clinger discussed the conditions of approval that the applicant needed clarification on or had issues with.
The septic envelopes will be shown on the site review process when the clubhouse and lockmaster is built
in the area. The issues have been resolved with the Sheriff's Department. Mr.Scheltinga indicated that the
internal roads will be maintained by the Metro District. The Right of Way will be public. Mr. Morrison
indicated that they will be public roads but the Metro District has in their service plan the ability to do some
maintenance on them. Mr. Clinger indicated that in inclement weather the Metro District has done some of
the snow removal. In conclusion, the PUD was approved in 1983 and a substantial change hearing was
approved in 2000. The outstanding issues will continue to be addressed. The homeowners need to be
assured that the amenities will be adhered to, so the applicant is requesting approval for the final plat.
John Folsom asked about the Metro District and if there were bonds that would be issued. Mr. Clinger
indicated it is based out of the homeowners association funding from the homes. Mr. Fell indicated that a
two million bond was issued to start the district since then nothing else has been needed. Mr. Folsom asked
how many lots have been sold. Mr. Clinger indicated that 94 lots approved, 55 have been sold and there
are 30 occupied with 10 under construction and 9 builder homes are under construction for sales.
Page -10-
Cathy Clamp asked if the amenities are completed according to what was approved in phase one. Mr.
Clinger stated that there will be an agreement as to when the amenities will go into effect with a regard to
the number of homes and the demand for them. Ms. Clamp asked Ms Smith about the septic system and
if she is comfortable with the sand filtration system. Ms. Smith indicated yes. Ms. Clamp asked Ms. Mika
if there is a requirement in phase one that the amenities need to be finished before filing two can be done.
Ms . Mika indicated that phasing was not addressed. There is a question as to which of the three previous
plats the out lot was identified. It was at the change of zone where the out lot a was identified conceptually.
John Folsom asked if the denial by the Board was based on three problems. Septic,density and the amount
of open space.Mr.Morrison indicated that those were the three exclusive ones and this is a new application.
This new application is in accordance with the approval of the substantial change.
Cathy Clamp asked about the maintenance plan for the septic system and the terms for the monitoring were
different than the maintenance agreement that was in the packet. Mr.Schupp indicated that the agreement
will depend on use but it will definitely be four years. The monitoring will be on yearly basis. Ms. Smith
indicated that information was submitted when the substantial change was completed and there were two
documents that need to be confirmed. Ms. Smith indicated a November document was received and it
delineates what systems in filing one will be effected by this proposal. Ms. Smith indicated that the
document needs to be retro back to all lots including filing one. Mr. Schupp indicated the change was in
direct response to a HOA meeting where there were a number of people who did not want to have their
systems inspected and have to pay for it. This statement eliminated them unless they want to be included.
Mr. Clinger indicated that all future lots that will be built upon will be required to be a part of this. Ms. Smith
indicated it was presented in the substantial change hearing that it will cover all the lots for the subdivision.
Mr. Morrison indicated that staff could not go back and change the approved filing one to include those lots
that are built. This agreement would pertain to the remaining lots, it is not the most perfect but it is
achievable. Mr. Schupp indicated that he believes once those original homeowners have to come up with
the money to maintain the systems they will voluntarily join the Metro District.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Chris Greneaux, Kerr McGee,stated his concerns with the application. Some of the concerns are there are
pipelines that go through the property that are not recorded on the plat that was submitted to the county,the
rights of way and easements are not recorded and flow lines are not indicated. The applicant has been
working with Kerr McGee for over ten years because of the high increase in density and changes in lot lines.
With the lot lines changed, the relationship between the pipe lines, lot line location and the way the plat
reflects it. The oil well layout plat indicates the lines. The problem with that is they are not verified. These
plats were done from the oil companies submitting as built plans and them being incorporated into the oil
well layout. The plat that was submitted to the county reflected those plans and some of that information
is not verified. There has not been sufficient time to review the lot layout as to where the lines actually run.
They are requesting more time to review the issues. The plans refer to the old layout design with reference
to the oil well heads. Mr. Greneaux would like to see a continuance to have time to work out issues before
the Board of County Commissioners. They can be addressed but it needs to be before the Boards hearing.
Michael Miller asked if the location of flow lines are fluid. How accurate are they gonna be to find the flow
lines. Mr. Greneaux stated that locators use a metal detector to find the lines and flag the lines. Mr. Miller
questioned how long it will take. Mr. Greneaux indicated that they have had ten years but it is not their
responsibility to do this but they will work with the applicant. They have submitted the approximate locations.
Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regard to not being responsible to tell the homeowners where the lines
were located. Mr. Greneaux stated that it was the homeowners responsibility before they dig to locate the
lines. Kerr McGee would like to do that now but there needs to be some assistance from the applicant to
be able to accomplish this. Mr. Miller asked how much time they are requesting. Mr. Greneaux indicated
that it could be done in two weeks. The key would be to have the applicant survey and place on the plat.
Mr. Morrison asked if that would work if this has to be done prior to the Board hearing. Mr. Greneaux
indicated that would be sufficient. Mr. Morrison indicated that it will be approximately six weeks or more.
Mr.Greneaux indicated that they were also requesting a comprehensive surface use agreement that includes
the road accesses. Mr. Morrison indicated that they have a right to use public roads. They have an
obligation if using overweight to comply with the standards. Mr. Greneaux indicated that this agreement
Page -11-
would cover all of those issues.
Cathy Clamp asked about the number of wells limited by Colorado Law and if Kerr McGee had maximized
that number. Mr. Greneaux indicated that the comprehensive surface use agreements will address this
issue. There were previous agreements but they did not address the issues that are present today. Kerr
McGee does have future drill sites and they are not located on the plat. Ms. Clamp asked about the normal
procedure when burying high pressure lines and the average depth. Mr. Greneaux indicated that there is
a different depending on lines. The high pressure lines are buried at four feet. There would not need to be
substantial changes to roadways as they exist now. This will all be addressed in the agreement.
Dale Hayhurst, Encana Energy Resources, has issues with the wells and would like a continuance,also,to
address the issues. The notification was not received but it could have went to several different addresses
and become lost. Incana would like to be able to work out a subsurface use agreement also. Mr. Miller
asked if the same time frame would be requested and acceptable. Mr. Hayhurst indicated that would
acceptable with them.
David Padgett,Patina Oil and Gas,indicated the request for a continuance to address the issues mentioned
above. Does the Planning Commission want to send to the Board a case that has had changes to the lot
lines?There is no exact location of where the flow lines are. They have worked for a long period of time with
the applicant and it has been a good working relationship. It has been a well by well basis. The applicant
is now looking at doing a comprehensive plan for a large number of lots and it has a great effect of the oil
wells and future wells. Mr. Padgett feels that it is unfair they do not have an accurate picture of all of their
assets,all the pipelines and future well locations. The feel as though they were left in the dark until recently
even though the project has been progressing for twenty years. It is unrealistic to have a continuance that
will solve everything in a four to six week time frame unless there is an accurate picture of where their assets
are in relationship to the lots. Patina wants a clear picture of the situation and they will continue to work with
the applicant as they have in the past. Mr. Padgett indicated he was not happy to have something crammed
down their throats at the very last minute when they are talking about an investment on both sides of the
table. Mr. Padgett feels that it would take a minimum of two months. Mr. Padgett would like the Planning
Commission to review the case again if the lot lines will change making it a different proposal than what was
submitted to the Board for review.
Molly Summerville, attorney Anadarco (Union Pacific Resources), stated issues with the ownership of the
mineral rights in the section. There is no surface use agreement currently in place with the developer. There
is an old agreement that was dated in 1990 but this agreement has terminated according to its own terms.
The goal is to get a surface use agreement in place that identifies and preserve the locations for the existing
wells site,existing production facilities, pipelines,access routes and future well sites. Ms.Somerville would
like a condition added to reflect the desire for a final surface use agreement. There is quite a bit of work to
be done. Ms. Somerville would like to include more specific information in the conditions that staff has
included in Condition of Approval M. The language has been provided to Ms. Mika. The hard rock minerals
needs to be addressed. The coal resources are on the property. They are not asking for a condition
regarding the coal but an agreement can be worked out.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about the coal deposits and if they were like gravel deposits with regard
to improvements that interferes with extraction. Mr. Morrison stated it actually relates to zoning and that
issue in terms of county action was settle a long time ago. Mr. Morrison stated it does not apply at the final
plan stage. Ms. Summerville indicated that they needs to have an objection on record on the basis of the
coal notice not being received. Mr. Morrison stated that there are two different statutes because one was
twenty five years old and one recently enacted. The opportunity to object relates to the recent statue.
James Rohn asked Ms. Mika if more oil wells were added. Ms. Mika indicated that in November 13, 1984
when the case was originally proposed the issue of coal minerals was addressed and a continuance was
approved to talk about the deposits. There was a couple letters that addressed the issue of the coal with
regard to the economic feasibility. The issue was addressed but there is no indication as to whether is was
completely resolved. Mr. Rohn asked about the oil wells. Ms. Mika deferred that to the Oil Company
representatives. Oil and Gas has always been an element on this site.
Page -12-
Jana Bolander Fraser, southeast neighbor approximately one mile away, indicated her objection to the
project due to the incompatibility of the area as well as the oil and gas wells. The density with regard to the
number of wells will increase and be a conflict. Traffic will be an issue. The density of homes is to much.
The area is surrounded by farms and ranches. Traffic makes farming impossible as well as the animal
smells and noises. The location and considering the number of oil and gas wells it is incompatible.
Kay Cornelius,adjacent neighbor, objections regarding the septic systems. The land that they graze upon
is adjacent to the reservoir. There is quite a bit of wetlands that goes down to the gun club area. There is
question with regard to the wetlands and its viability with this amount of homes being adjacent to it. This is
a viable farming community with the nearest town is seven miles away. The collision between the density
and rural farming on roads will effect the surrounding owners. There are concerns with the horse lots and
the overgrazing.
Cathy Clamp asked about the dairy and is it adjacent and how many head. Ms. Cornelius indicated it was
approximately 3500 head.
James Rohn asked Ms. Mika when the dairy was put in. Ms. Mika stated 4 years ago and approximately
4000 head were approved.
Kay Cornelius added that they own 26 shares of Freko Water that comes out of the reservoir. The marina
aspect is questionable due to the water quality issues. It plugged an irrigation drip system with algae growth.
Roy Wardell,neighbor,stated his concerns with density for the area. The situation is result of a bad decision
that was made in 1983. There is no good way to resolve it. The expense of this development for the
highways,soils and homes is far to much for the area. The soil is sand dunes that has blown in there over
the years and it will blow away.
Chuck Carpenter, attorney for the developer, addressed concerns indicated by the oil and gas companies
present. There has been extensive oil and gas development and it is not a new issue. In 1990 there was
a resolution that indicated that there was no specific value for the coal in the area. In 1990 there were also
surface agreements with oil and gas operators, some comprehensive some were done well by well. It was
believed at time that they had agreed on the future locations of the wells. The development has been orderly
and they have previously reached agreements and there should be no further problems doing so. The
applicant has committed to the oil and gas operators that they will go back and do comprehensive
agreements to address the future sites. There has been a good faith effort with regard to the location of the
facilities and there has never been the willingness from the oil and gas companies as there is today. Mr.
Carpenter indicated that the lines are there but they are not always in the area indicated. There are
agreements that plats be provided to them with regard to the location of lines. It is important to get this
sorted out. The issues will be resolved and there is no need to come back before the Planning Commission.
The final plat will include all the corrections and indications that are required. The companies have changed
personnel and those items need to be addressed and will be.
Cathy Clamp asked about the COZ-421and if the requirements hold true for an subsequent development,
including the setbacks. Ms. Mika indicated it was a PUD and there could be various uses, it also addresses
roadways. There have been additional agreements with the County to address issues with the roadways and
such. Ms.Clamp indicated that they could go for less of a setback without violating the change of zone plat.
Mr. Morrison indicated that there needs to be a consistency with the intent of the zone change. The intent
was to provide a margin of safety between the wells and the other users. The issues can be modified but
not out of existence. As the design gets closer to completion it will be evaluated against the intent.
Scott Knutson, Kerr McGee, indicated his work is with the pipelines and they have provided to the applicant
where the lines were located. There was no intent to show exact locations just where the lines were located
that have been surveyed in. The lines have meats and bound descriptions. The lines need to be located
and shown on the plats.
Carl Jebson, neighbor, stated his concerns with the septic tanks and what affect the drainage will have on
the low ground.Some will leach into the soils and eventually into the water table. It would be better to have
Page -13-
a sewage treatment plant instead of individual systems. Any system in the sandy soil that exists will be an
issue. Water quality in the lake is a concern. The water on the lake is not safe for children and the
recreational aspect. The lake has been declared an impaired waterway with a high ph. There would be
definite issues with the flow lines, access and location.
Cathy Clamp asked Ms. Smith if there are any chemicals/nutrients that would come out of a home that the
system would not filter. Ms.Smith indicated that things like viruses, nitrates which are filtered to a point and
other possibilities. Ms. Smith stated that the lots that were closest to the lake and to the ditch will have the
highest chance to contaminate. Ms. Clamp asked if the monitoring wells that are proposed will screen this.
Ms. Smith stated that there are no monitoring mechanism to determine if it is going to be a problem. The
management plan includes random toxicity tests that will be performed. There was no parameters identified
as well as nothing in the plan for mitigation. Ms.Smith indicated that what has been presented is more than
what has been previously done. There is more nitrate contamination from over fertilizing a lawn. There will
be random monitoring for content. Ms. Smith indicated typically a problem is not noticed until it is backing
up. The testing that is proposed is more than anything done before. Ms. Clamp asked about the reservoir
and if it is impaired water way and if it will have any effect on the safety and welfare for the surrounding
property owners. Ms.Smith stated that it would but that is not a statement that she can make. Mr.Morrison
asked if there were bathing regulations. Ms.Smith stated that there are regulations for swim beaches. There
were none identified. The only identified elements were boating and a picnic area. It is not expected to be
a marina type area.
John Jebsen,neighbor,provided information with regard to the water quality. Mr.Jensen stated his concern
for the quality of the water in the lake. There is high amounts of ph,nitrates and phosphates. There is a high
amount of algae in the summer. There was a level of pathogens that was off the chart found in the lake that
is connected to Milton Reservoir. This is basically urban run off and that is what they are recreating in. This
subdivision should not be sold as a water recreation area. The covenants indicate no skin contact with the
water. The septic systems are being clustered like the lots and they will be close to each other. It has been
indicated that the septic systems will be lined with plastic and what happens if they go over the limits. This
will overflow and not be treated. There is a concern for the blowing sand and the erosion on the horse trails.
The traffic on County Road 39 will increase.
The Chair closed public portion of the hearing.
David Clinger , representative, addressed some of the issue brought forward. The issue of traffic was
addressed and approved by the county traffic engineer. Mitigation will be done on the road that serves the
north and south. The roads are adequate to serve at full build out. Septic systems and wetlands were
addressed by using environmental overlays. The applicant has avoided the wetlands and has approval from
core of engineers for this layout. The applicant has continued and will continue to work with the oil and gas
companies with regard to flagging the service lines. This was a three month process. Those main lines that
were flagged are concentrated in the open space. Some of the lines are fiberglass and difficult to find. The
applicant agrees that all lines on lots will be fully located prior to the issuance of any building permit. This
was the home can be adjusted according to the located lines. All the parties have acted in good faith and
will continue to do so. The applicant believes that prior to the Board hearing they can come to resolution on
the issues brought forward. The only thing permitted on the lake is boating and fishing. Swimming is
prohibited. It is an area for wildlife observance. The applicant has done everything possible to work within
the system to create a state of the art septic system. Mr. Morrison requested a copy of a report done by a
water quality expert be entered into the record.
Cathy Clamp asked about the resolutions from the Board regarding the substantial change and denial of the
previous plan. The issue raised was the adequate raw water source had not been obtained. Mr. Clinger
indicated that there is an agreement with the developer and the district with respect for all the water. Mr.
Clinger indicated that the taps are purchased in phases according to the lot sale. If the taps cannot be
purchased then building permits will not be asked for. Ms. Clamp indicated that there are presently no
shares of CBT water available.
James Rohn asked about the taps and there not being any. Mr.Clinger indicated that there is 800 thousand
dollars in taps and there is a contract. The contract indicates that they will provide the taps for the homes
Page -14-
in the subdivision. Ms. Clamp questioned the availability of the raw water. Mr. Fell indicated that all the
water has been purchased for filing one. The water market is watched constantly and 188 acre feet of water
has been purchased.
Mr. Clinger indicated that changes on page 5 from payment to pavement. Development Standards Page
7#2. The applicant would like it to reflect that the map will be inside entry house. The maps get vandalized
when in the open. There will be direction maps at sales office and community center. Development
Standard#5 concerning the Sheriff's Department can be removed. The issues have been addressed.
This is no suburban subdivision there is no need for sidewalks. They want the area to be open, there will
be no fences to the open spaces. Mr. Miller questioned the traffic calming measures.
James Rohn would like to see the letter from the Sheriff's Department prior to removing #5 .
Mr. Miller indicated that there is a change requested on Condition of Approval 5 V and asked if it could be
deleted. Ms.Mika indicated that it should be included under site plan development standards to#20. There
will also be the change from payment to pavement in 2 I. Correct Development Standard#2 to read"inside
the entry house "
Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regard to deleting #5 & #6 that deal with the Sheriffs Department
requests. Ms.Mika indicated that there has been nothing submitted requesting the deletion of these. These
were taken from the original comments. Mr. Miller would be comfortable deleting a portion of#5. Drew
Scheltinga, Public Works, recommended that speed bumps not be installed. They are no effective and a
hazard for snow plowing. In this rural setting, traffic calming settings are not necessary. They have been
included in high density developments. Mr. Miller asked about the bike paths. Ms. Mika stated that there
are recreational trails identified but not specifically bike.
Monica Mika indicated that additional comments would need to be considered. Mr. Greneauximlin asked
that staff attempt to address the issues of the oil and gas with language while other discussions were going
on. Mr. Miller indicated that the oil and gas issues will be discussed at length.
Bryant Gimlin moved the relocate Condition of Approval 1V to Development Standard (Site)#20,Condition
of Approval 2 I- change word from payment to pavement, Development Standard (PUD) #2 to read "A
permanent sign shall be placed inside the entry house to the subdivision ",delete Development Standard
(PUD)#5. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Monica Mika added language from the Health Department in Condition of Approval 1 G to include the
peninsula which was part of the change of zone. The language will consist of"No development associated
with Beebe Draw or the District shall occur in section 15. The peninsula in section 15 will be designated a
wildlife refuge with appropriate sign age and limited access." This will tie the use to the subdivision.
Additionally in Prior to recording the plat CC language consisting of"Evidence shall be submitted from the
Fire District showing that the Fire District has approved the locations of the fire hydrants located within the
subdivision. Those locations shall be delineated on the plat."
Pam Smith, Health Department, has additional language to be included in Prior to recording the Plat
numbers DD, EE and FF. The only additional comments that are not related to oil and gas is to include that
addresses the retroactivity of the septic systems maintenance plan. The language will be located on
Development Standard (PUD)#21 to consist of"The Metro District shall be responsible for the continuing
maintenance for the septic systems serving the residential and public facilities within all areas associated
in Filing Two and all lots in Filing One that are not sold and those lots sold but not improved as of the date
of this hearing."
James Rohn moved to amend the previous notations. Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion carried.
Cathy Clamp indicated her concern for the water and would like to something in the conditions in prior to
obtaining building permits that the applicant demonstrate that they have one share of CBT water to fund the
raw water for the lot. Mr. Morrison indicated that it could be addressed in the phasing as long as the water
is available for the phase. There is no requirement for raw water for all lots, but an agreement is required
Page -15-
or a way of accomplishing the need. Mr. Morrison indicated that they would have to show the availability
of water before moving on to the next phase. Improvements have been made or an agreement is in place.
Ms. Clamp indicated that there is a tap agreement but it only available upon transfer of CBT shares. Mr.
Morrison indicated that the raw water and taps can be required by phase not on a per lot basis. Ms. Mika
indicated that a phasing plan can be included. Language can be added to Condition of Approval 1D to
include language consisting of"Agreements for improvements have been accepted and all water taps have
been purchased." Mr. Morrison indicated that at the time of purchase for the taps the raw water has to be
dedicated.
Cathy Clamp moved to amend 1D to the language above. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated he is not comfortable setting a date with out having the lines mapped out for the oil
and gas companies. 45-60 days is a very conservative estimate to complete the task at hand. Mr.
Greneauximlin indicated that it could be inserted as prior to scheduling the Board hearing. This will give
them a better time frame and there must be evidence shown that agreements are in place. Ms. Clamp
indicated that the only time that the conditions are gone around is if the Oil and Gas Companies have not
had any contact whereas in this case there has been plenty of contact and communication. There is still
some question on the location of future well sites and some line locations. Mr. Morrison suggested that an
outside limit be added due to the fact that an impasse could be reached and the oil and gas companies have
veto power. The suggestions is"not to exceed 90 days." This puts the burden on both sides and if it cant
be resolved privately then the Board will make a determination. The recommended is to add at the end
language consisting of"Prior to Scheduling Board of County Commissioner hearing but not to exceed 90
days a comprehensive surface agreement including flowlines,pipelines and all applicable oil and gas uses
including future and existing well site locations, locations for associated oil and gas production,equipment,
pipelines easements and defined access roads shall be identified and located on the plat for review by the
Board of County Commissioners."
James Rohn moved to amend the language above. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin commented on the reasons for denial in the last application. A process has been gone through
and this is a different proposal, but some of the issues have not been addressed. They include the water
quality of Milton Reservoir, but that will be there regardless of the development or not. There are some
issues that may be as relevant today as they were in the past. Mr. Miller agreed that the density was to high
when it came through the first time. Some of the issues have been addressed but not all of them. Mr. Miller
does not think it is compatible with surrounding uses. Ms.Clamp stated that the applicant has spend several
million dollars trying to adhere to constantly changing guidelines and measurements. Those are far beyond
what was originally proposed. Mr. Miller indicated that they are revisiting a proposal that was brought in
several years ago and different regulations need to be applied to them. Mr.Mokray indicated that there have
been significant changes with regard to the septic system. Mr. Rohn commented that this many houses
could be turned into a small town with lots of back yard.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case PF-1021,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Mika if current guidelines could be considered especially with compatibility. Mr.
Morrison stated that in the context of the zone change this has already occurred. The Final design is being
asked for. Mr. Morrison stated that a decision has already been made by previous Planning Commission
members and that has been passed on to this particular board. The decision needs to be based on the
design. Mr.Greneauximlin indicated that the developer has tried to get the design compatible with what exist
in the area.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, no; Cathy Clamp,
yes. Motion carried.
Page -16-
Cathy Clamp commented that the applicant has gone above the call to try and make this work with what is
surrounding the area. The area around it will likely grow in the future and it will be compatibility.
James Rohn commented it was incompatible with the area.
John Folsom commented that the reasons for the original denial have been addressed and some have not
been addressed.
Michael Miller commented that according to the Board of County Commissioners reasons for denial, he
believes those issues are still there.
CASE NUMBER: MZ-614
APPLICANT: Timothy and Lisa Brough
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE 1911, being part of the SW4 Section 6, T7N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from (A)Agricultural to (E) Estate for
nine (9) residential lots
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 84; East of and adjacent to WCR13
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case MZ-614, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
James Rohn wanted to know why the Department of Planning Services had sent a referral to School District
RE-4? He stated that he thought it should have gone to RE-9 instead. Mr. Ogle replied that maps the
Department of Planning Services uses,determine the referral area. The applicant's children presently attend
school in Windsor, School District RE-4, thus the referral was sent to them.
Cathy Clamp inquired about referral comments from the Water Supply&Storage Company and whether any
documentation has been received from them with a resolution of their concerns? Mr.Ogle said the applicant
has made a diligent effort in addressing the concerns of Fred Walker, Water Storage & Supply Company
president. Unfortunately Mr.Walker is absent this evening. Ms.Clamp asked if it were not correct that they
recently had the Dyecrest Dairy come before the Board to request an increase in animals? Mr.Ogle replied
that the Dyecrest Dairy operation specific to this case has 2700 head of cows in Larimer County. The
Dyecrest Dairy she is referring to is in Weld County at roads 15&84, and the vacant land with an approved
use for a dairy is presently up for sale.
Tony Evans, Elite Consulting, provided clarification on the project. The property access is off WCR 84.
Mr. Evans pointed out the Brough residence on a map. He said the property is currently used for grazing
and primarily maintained by mowing, as it is not prime agricultural land. The Broughs would like to relocate
their access off of WCR 84. One main road would allow access for all 9 lots. Dyecrest Dairy will not oppose
the project on condition of placing the right to farm statement on the plat.
Tim Brough, the applicant, provided clarification of his correspondence with the Water Supply & Storage
Company. At one point they had an agreement in theory but Water Supply&Storage declined to sign. Mr.
Brough felt that Mr. Walker's requests were becoming too numerous and the two of them did not reach an
agreement.
Michael Miller asked about the secondary access for the fire company coming down the ditch road, and if
there was room on the end of that lot to put a road on Mr. Brough's property without interfering with the ditch
property? Mr. Brough replied there would be. Mr. Ogle added that the agreement is on Lots 5 and 6 for
Page -17-
emergency access, thus it is outside all easements of the Water Supply & Storage Company. They would
however, need to reach an agreement with Mr. Mills, the property owner to the south of WCR 84.
Ms.Clamp inquired if there are ditches on two sides of the property? Mr. Brough said there is a large supply
ditch to the north, and on WCR 13 there are lateral ditches that serve farms to the south of them.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Mr. Ogle submitted a Memorandum to add to Staff Comments, with the following items:
Page 1: Add
State of Colorado, Division of Geological Survey, referral received 11-13-2002
Page 3, item 2.C.13 Delete
The applicant shall delineate septic envelopes on Lots 5 and 6 due to the emergency access
between the lots,and on Lots 4,8 and 9 due to the utility easement and wetlands (Lots 8 and
9). (Department of Public Health & Environment)
Page 5, item 3.H Add
Care will be required in locating septic systems on Lots 5 and 6 due to the emergency access
between the lots,and on Lots 4,8 and 9 due to the utility easement and wetlands (Lots 8 and
9). (Department of Public Health & Environment)
Page 6, item 3.W Add
The Developer or Home Owners Association representative shall provide each owner and/or
builder with a copy of the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Terracon, dated
October 12, 2001. (Colorado Geologic Survey)
Page 7, item 4.H Modify
The applicant shall enter into an agreement with Weld County to proportionally share the
cost of improvements to Weld County Road 13, from WCR 84 to State Highway 14.
(Department of Public Works)
Page 7, item 5. A Add Prior to Recording the Final Plat:
"Weld County's Right to Farm"as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code shall
be placed on the recorde d deeds for the individual parcels. ( Department o f Planning
Services)
Page 8, item 5. B Add
That a notification on the deeds to the potential purchasers that an existing confined animal
feeding operation currently exists in the neighborhood and that the ability of the current or
any new owner of the dairy to expand shall not be inhibited by the development pending that
applicable rules and regulations are met. (Department of Planning Services)
Page 4, Item 2.D Delete
The applicant shall submit a letter requesting that the Zoning Permit for a Mobile Home
(ZPMH-1315) for a Principle Dwelling be vacated as the mobile home no longer is on-site.
(Department of Planning Services)
Mr. Rohn asked for a quick synopsis on the geo-technical survey. Pam Smith, Weld County Department
of Health &Environment, replied it was a preliminary report which indicated that most of the site was suitable
for conventional septic systems.There was one boring, identified as Log 9,that found shallow ground water
at four and a half feet, but it was conducted in the wetlands in or near the no-build zone near Lot 9. There
Page -18-
was also one perk test on Lot 4 that provided the perk data for the entire seventy-four acres, so it was pretty
limited information. Mr. Rohn asked if the land is partially in a flood zone? Ms. Smith replied no to the flood
zone, but that there is a no-build zone on Lots 8 & 9 due to a high ground water table and storm drainage.
John Folsom asked if these modifications to the final plat were going to become standard procedure? Mr.
Ogle replied no, it will not become standard procedure. Terry Dye, Dyecrest Dairy, had requested this be
done in exchange for withdrawal of his opposition to this development
Mr. Folsom expressed concern about provisions for open space. Mr. Ogle pointed out that this is a minor
sub-division, so no provision for open space is required.
Mr. Rohn made a motion that items in the memorandum of November 19,2002, be included in the amended
staff comments, deletions made, and be re-numbered accordingly. Seconded and motion passed.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Evans if he had read the Memorandum, Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards, and if he was in agreement? Mr. Evans replied that he had and was in agreement.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Ogle if the only reason for recommending denial was the proximity to the dairy? Mr.
Ogle replied that was correct.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case MZ-614, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation
of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, absent; Bruce
Fitzgerald, absent;James Rohn, no,cited Section 23-2-30.A.2; Bernie Ruesgen, absent;Cathy Clamp, yes,
with comment; would like the neighbors contacted for their input in regard to restricting proposed building
height. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1403
APPLICANT: James &Janetta Anglin
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A and B of RE-3162; part of the SE4 of Section 13, T6N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development P Ian and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use-by-Right, an accessory use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (construction yard,
office and shop) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 392; approximately 50 feet west of
WCR 37.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1403,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Michael Miller pointed out that according to the map, the property is more like 200 feet west of WCR 37
rather than the 50 feet on the application.
Mr.Gathman agreed and added that the proposed yard and shop are to go on Lot B within the building
envelope.
James Rohn asked if this property was adjacent to a proposed PUD? Mr. Greneauxathman and Mr. Miller
said they did not think so.
Page -19-
Terry Mills, co-applicant, presented clarification of the project. They want to establish a shop and office in
this area of Colorado. Most of their work is scattered throughout Colorado and they need an area for light
maintenance. Their preference is to work on the eastern plains because they do a lot of work in the area for
CDOT. The shop will be in the front, on envelope B, the farm will be on the remaining thirty-seven acres.
There is ample water on the property and easy access to highways. They need a place to store equipment
when it is not being used elsewhere. They will have an additional three-sided storage building on the back
of the lot for lumber.
John Folsom inquired about the type of equipment that would be stored on the site and the approximate
number of pieces, and if the photos Mr. Mills presented were representative of the structures they would be
placing on this site? Mr. Mills indicated it was mostly loaders, semi-trucks, bottom dumps, tandem end
dumps, and tandem water trucks. There are approximately 20-40 pieces of equipment on site in the winter
and 15 pieces during summer months. Mr. Mills also said the access would be sufficient with the turning
radius need by the equipment, and that the photos are representative of the structures they intend to place
on this site.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Lloyd Kindsfater,17485 Hwy 392,neighbor and realtor,stated his concerns about the project.Mr.Kindsfather
has lived in the area forty-four years and believes that this farm ground is some of the finest in the United
States. Mr. Kindsfater felt the proposed use for this change of zone is not appropriate, and in complete
opposition to what the surrounding use is,and does not represent the highest and best use as outlined in the
Department of Planning Services USR application. He also believes access to the county roads is the worst
possible situation and cited safety as a large factor,due to roughly twenty fatal accidents that have occurred
at the corner of Hwy 392 and WCR 37.
Bryant Gimlin explained to Mr. Kindsfather that this is not a change of zone, it is a use permit, which gives
the applicant usage rights for a yard and shop but does not change the underlying zoning of the property.
James Milne, 18457 Hwy 392, neighbor believes this is not consistent with the adjoining land uses and in
the interest of time, the Board can read his submitted letter for more specifics.
James R.Anglin, 8995 WCR 62, neighbor, spoke in favor of the project as he believes Mr. Mills just wants
a site to conduct business and will continue agricultural uses for the remainder of the property. He saw no
problems with the additional traffic as it would not be all day long due to the type of business. He lives on
WCR 62 adjacent to Hwy 257 where truck traffic from gravel pits is frequent and has had no accidents.
Gary Harkless, 20126 Jubilee Way, south of LaSalle, objected to the project and said he had also written
a letter to the Board. Mr. Harkless said he had just recently purchased a thirty-three and a half acre section
to the north and is in the process of building a five hundred thousand dollar home for himself and his wife.
He said he bought the property because the surrounding property was agricultural, and because of the nice
views from that site. Had he known there was a possibility of a business like this locating here, he never
would have purchased that property. The access for both trucks and cars from Hwy 392 is going to be
inherently dangerous. Mr. Harkless stressed that the proposed use for this site is not compatible with the
surrounding area,which is either agricultural or residential, and would damage the value of his property and
others in the area.
Mrs. Lloyd Kindsfater, 17485 Hwy 392, neighbor, asked what type of agricultural crops will be raised on the
property? She said that since the purchase of the property by the Anglins, it has been nothing but a weedy
mess, with Canadian thistle, which is a noxious weed in this area. The property has not been maintained
from day one. Who ever wants to farm this property will have a lot of work to do before it is even possible
to farm it. Mrs. Kindsfater also expressed concern whether there is adequate water for the property.
The chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Cathy Clamp questioned Char Davis, Weld County Department of Health & Environment, about the
standards allowing the property to use the existing public water;do the standards address commercial use;
Page -20-
from where does the water supply derive; and is it sufficient for this use? Ms.Davis replied that it was North
Weld Water and that there is a tap.
Mr. Miller inquired about the traffic numbers for Hwy 392. Drew Scheltinga, Weld County Department of
Public Works, replied that the CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation)count indicated that three
thousand, one hundred fifteen cars traveled Hwy 392 in 1995, the last year a study was done. Mr.Scheltinga
said that the traffic count is probably a third higher now.
John Folsom asked about visibility on Hwy 392. Mr. Scheltinga indicated that the rate of speed is high and
technically there is adequate stopping site distance for trucks to turn in and out of that site, but that does not
mean that the safety concerns aren't increased. Though there have been traffic safety problems and fatal
accidents, due to vehicles running stop signs in the area, the increase in traffic is of the most concern. The
applicant however, is not a heavy traffic contributor.
Mr. Folsom asked if there would be enough time, if a truck was entering the road, for a passenger vehicle
coming over the hill and traveling 70 mph, to stop. Mr. Scheltinga said if they are paying attention, there
is plenty of distance to stop.
Jim Rohn concurred that this is a dangerous area for accidents.
Ms. Clamp said she saw that CDOT approved a residential ingress and asked what the likely-hood was of
CDOT requiring an acceleration/deceleration lane? Mr.Scheltinga indicated that they would not require turn
lanes.
Terry Mills, applicant, addressed some of the concerns. Mr. Mills said he had no idea that Mr. Harkless was
building a home and that he respects his right to build there. Mr. Mills said he had the opportunity to
purchase the Harkless property as well, but did not do so because he felt it was too expensive and the
access would not be as good. Mr.Mills also told the Board that he had conducted his own unscientific traffic
survey of Hwy 392. He determined that the line of sight is almost two thousand feet coming from each
direction. According to Mr.Mills,and he realizes that this is not an engineered study,there seem to be more
people during the peak times with regard to arriving to work. From 7:05 to 7:15 a.m. he counted 55
vehicles; 7:33 to 7:43 a.m., 92 vehicles; 7:55 to 8:05 a.m., 88 vehicles, obviously rushing just before 8 to
get to work. Traffic dropped to 33 shortly thereafter. He counted 40 vehicles around 10:15 to 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Mills stressed that his employees are very aware of traffic, they work in it every day, and also attend
safety meetings.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Mills if he had read the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, and if he
was in agreement? Mr. Mills replied that he had and was in agreement.
Mr. Greneauxathman pointed out that two of the conditions, page 6, item F., and page 7, item H. are
redundant. After consulting with Ms.Davis,Weld County Department of Health&Environment,they agreed
item H. on page 7 could be removed.
Bryant Gimlin motioned to remove item H., page 7. Motion was seconded and passed.
Mr. Miller shared that he had considered purchasing the Harkless property for his family, but reconsidered
due to the traffic. Mr. Miller feels the passenger vehicle and heavy equipment traffic and speeds on Hwy
392 are excessive. He also said he does not feel that this would be a compatible use of the property, as
surrounding uses are not remotely similar to what the applicant proposes.
Mr. Folsom indicated that it is not the responsibility for the flow of traffic to have to stop for the truck entering
onto Hwy 392.
Mr. Rohn commented that both the road and intersection are dangerous. He believes the CDOT car count
has to be wrong, that 3100 cars per day is a gross under count. He agrees that the proposed use is not
compatible with the surrounding area.
Page -21-
Ms. Clamp also agreed with Mr. Rohn as to the proposed use and added her concern that the proposed
business starts at 6:00am. She also expressed concern that even though the property is less than the
standard 80 acres for farming, it is still some of the best farm land in the region.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1403, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of denial citing incompatibility with Section 23-2-220A.2. of the Weld County Code. Stephen Mokray
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, absent; Bruce
Fitzgerald, absent; James Rohn, yes, citing Section 23-2-220A.2.; Bernie Ruesgen, absent; Cathy Clamp,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
I ru a -ACt ct( ILt 4---
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -22-
Hello